Talk:Paramount Pictures
Rumors... I received an email from a fan i correspond with, he said that Paramount Pictures Digital Entertainment is becoming a casualty of the -CBS split and http://www.startrek.com could close down, possibly as early as the 31st. Anyone wishing to cache it or check facts from there should take note. Also, someone I talked to raised questions as to the continuation of the Star Trek franchise -- the novels and games continue even though hollywood production shut down, but somebody said they weren't sure whether theyd be reporting to Viacom or CBS for re-acquirung the rights. Dows anyone know anything about this? I'm not sure whether to take it with a grain of salt -- or is defunct or to be at a new studio? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :I had heard about the possibility of StarTrek.com closing down from TrekToday back in early December (you can find the article ), but I didn't think much of it since all they have to do is find another company to buy and run the site. I'm certain they'll find someone interested in the official Star Trek web site. :As for the other thing, I've heard this and that about Trek's future on film and television being up in the air with all the changes and splits. I'll have to look more into it, though. --From Andoria with Love 15:57, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) :I can tell you now, with the eleventh film's writer having already moved on to other things with the film supposedly still in early development, things certainly don't look good. You can find more info on this and the Viacom-CBS split . However, I think Trek will return in some form or fashion... we just don't know who will produce it. --From Andoria with Love 16:02, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) Demise of the Franchise? Really? I've just read through the Demise of the Franchise section and I think the whole thing needs to be deleted. With negatively-charged words like "demise" and "gutted" it feels like it's been copied from someone's memoirs and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. And it's not even accurate. It completely ignores the Pocket Books novels and IDW comics that flourished in the era which is falsely claimed to be a "merchandise drought". As a fan of the novels and comics, I can say that the 2000s decade was actually a golden age for the Star Trek franchise. There were plenty of novels published during this decade and not merely a "token number" as claimed by this article. NetSpiker (talk) 11:10, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :Or perhaps moved to the talk page during further discussion. The novels, comics, games, etc are the purview of Memory Beta. - Compvox (talk) 11:21, August 22, 2016 (UTC) How is moving it to the talk page any different than simply deleting it? Is there some kind of tag I can put on the article to indicate that the article is written from a biased perspective and needs serious work to bring it up to wiki standard? NetSpiker (talk) 02:40, August 24, 2016 (UTC) :: . - 01:23, September 30, 2016 (UTC) Outdated Information. In particular with regards to how much Star Trek has made. These sources can be used to updated this stuff. http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/11/business/fi-52785 https://america.cgtn.com/2016/07/26/business-of-star-trek-franchise-celebrates-50th-anniversary Timur72299 (talk) 13:51, April 23, 2017 (UTC). :Section updated accordingly--Sennim (talk) 10:35, February 15, 2019 (UTC) Article structure This article is quite oddly structured. If one reads it, it goes through the history of Paramount and Star Trek through the mid-80s, then goes on a very long tangent about merchandising in different media (which goes right up to the present day, including the CBS/Viacom split), and then returns to the mid-‘80s and the creation of . It then goes through the glory days of the ‘90s, the “franchise fatigue” of the late ‘90s and early ‘00s, the “wilderness years” between the cancellation of Enterprise and the beginning of the alternate universe film series. Although licensed merchandising was and is an important part of “the Franchise,” it feels like a digression from the main subject of this article, Paramount Pictures. Would it make sense to spin that section out into a separate article, to keep this one focused on Paramount’s “core business”, making movies and TV shows? I’m not sure what the best name for such an article would be (History of Star Trek Merchandising?), but I think this article would benefit from such a split. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 05:51, August 2, 2019 (UTC) :Actually, it is something I've been mulling about for quite some time myself now; I've even been thinking about going a step further by suggesting splitting off all the sections from "Syndicating The Original Series and resurgence" through "Reestablishing itself in the alternate universe" (including the film and series sections, they being the primary parts of the franchise, plus associated footnotes) into a "franchise" article of their own, with only leaving the acquisition section and a general mention of the series and films in the Paramount article. Even though Paramount has been the longest owner of Star Trek by far, the reasons for doing so are fivefold, :1)The reasons as mentioned by Josiah, added with the consideration that all the franchise info has overshadowed the studio proper article to an extent :2)The franchise has over the decades been established as an entity onto its own, both colloquially and in writings :3)An even more pertinent split rationale in my mind is the fact that the franchise has formally had four owners to wit, Desilu, Paramount/Gulf+Western, Paramount/old Viacom, CBS (in actuality three owners, as the latest ownership transfer had been more of a paper construct as the end owner is still National Amusement) :4)An obvious rationale is that even in the Paramount era their were other parties involved in the franchise as well :5)Franchise elements I haven't got around to, such as toys, can more easily be added as new sections in the new article without conflicting the studio nature of the Paramount proper article :If a split per my suggestion is decided upon, I'm not sure how to call the new article, "The history of the Star Trek franchise" or just "The Star Trek franchise"? If a split and new article title is decided upon, I'd appreciate a heads-up since I, as the primary writer of the whole franchise thing, know where to look for pitfalls such as footnotes, internal links and the like, plus I've already been thinking about the rewrite of the potential franchise article intro (Desilu for example needs to be highlighted).--Sennim (talk) 09:10, August 2, 2019 (UTC) ::What you are looking for is an expansion of ''Star Trek'' corporate history, or creating ''Star Trek'' (franchise) with parts of this, the corporate page, and bits from the main Star Trek page. Personally, it seems to me that the corporate history page is where this should be, thouh the "paper" company is still a "topic" we would want to cover. - 08:14, August 3, 2019 (UTC)